1. Find these expressions in the text and translate them into Russian. Be ready to give explanations:

brand names, household words, to be efficient in one’s business methods, to market goods aggressively, to make initial losses in order to get a foothold in a new market, spectacular success, trade officials and businessmen, trade surplus, ratio of manufactures in total imports, vulnerable markets, to undermine competitors, to flood markets with cheap exports, dumping, to put a tariff on smth, to erect non-tariff barriers, bureaucracy and red tape, to get documents of approval for a new product, to get trade marks registered, tough emission tests, distribution system, a middle-man, retail outlet, production overheads, to react swiftly to, to exercise self-restraint, to cry out for protection, conciliatory gesture, buying mission, competitive prices, to create employment, to bend over backwards, to be sensitive to problems, well-deserved achievements in overseas trade, to heed warnings, to make long-term forecasts of a country's economic prospects, to sell without provoking protectionist reactions, to concede to lower wage cost competitors, to shift to knowledge-intensive industries, the value-added factor, countries with high per capita incomes, the pattern of trade.

Bribery

Students taking business courses are sometimes surprised to find that lectures on business ethics have been included in their syllabuses of study. They often do not realize that, later in their careers, they may be tempted to bend their principles to get what they want; perhaps also they are not fully aware that bribery in various forms is on the increase in many countries, and, in some, this type of corruption has been a way of life for centuries.

Let’s see how you would act in the following situation: suppose you were head of a large company and you want to break into a certain overseas market where the growth potential for your company is likely to be very great indeed. During negotiations with government officials of this country, the Minister of Trade makes it clear to you that if you offer him a substantial bribe, you will find it much easier to get an import licence for your goods, and you are also likely to avoid 'bureaucratic delays', as he puts it. Now, the question is: do you pay up or stand by your principles?

It is easy to talk about having high moral standards, but, in practice, what would one really do in such a situation? Some time ago the British car manufacturer, British Leyland, was accused of operating a 'slush fund', and of other questionable practices such as paying agents and purchasers with padded commissions, offering additional discounts and making payments to numbered bank accounts in Switzerland. The company rejected these allegations and they were later withdrawn. Nevertheless, at this time, there were people in the motor industry in Britain who were prepared to say in private: 'Look, we're in a wheeling-dealing business. Every year we're selling more than a £1,000 million worth of cars abroad. If we spend a few million greasing the palms of some of the buyers, who's hurt? If we didn't do it, someone else would'.

It is difficult to resist the impression that bribery and other questionable payments are on the increase. Indeed, they seem to have become a fact of commercial life. More than 300 US companies admitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission that they had made dubious payments of one kind or another – bribes, facilitating payments, extra discounts, etc. – in recent years. For discussion purposes, we can divide these payments into three broad categories.

The first category consists of substantial payments made for political purposes or to secure major contracts. For example, the US conglomerate ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation) offered a large sum of money in support of a US presidential candidate at a time when it was under investigation for possible violations of the US anti-trust law.

In this category, we may also include large payments made to ruling families or their close advisers in order to secure arms sales or major petrochemical and construction contracts. In a court case involving an arms deal with Iran, a witness claimed that £1 million had been paid by a British company to a 'go-between' who helped clinch a deal for the supply of tanks to that country. Other countries have also been known to put pressure on foreign companies to make donations to party funds.

The second category covers payments made to obtain quicker official approval of some project; to speed up the wheels of bureaucracy. An interesting example of this kind of payment is provided by the story of a sales manager who had been trying for some months to sell road machinery to the Minister of Works of a Caribbean country. Finally, he hit upon the answer. Discovering that the minister was a bibliophile, he bought a rare edition of a book, slipped $20,000 within its pages, then presented it to the minister. This man examined its contents, then said: 'I understand there is a two-volume edition of this work.' The sales manager, who was quick-witted, replied: 'My company cannot afford a two-volume edition, sir, but we could offer you a copy with an appendix!' A short time later, the deal was approved.

The third category involves payments made in countries where it is traditional to pay people to facilitate the passage of a business deal. Some Middle East countries would be included on this list, as well as certain Far Eastern countries.

The payment may be made by a foreign company to ensure a tender is put on a selective contract list or the company may pay so that an import licence for essential equipment is approved. Sometimes an expensive gift may be necessary to soften up a government official. A common type in this category is the 'facilitating payment' – usually a smaller sum of money – made to certain customs officials to clear cargoes.

In a well-known British newspaper, a writer argued recently that 'industry is caught in a web of bribery' and that everyone is 'on the take'. This is probably an exaggeration. However, today's businessman, selling in overseas markets, will frequently meet situations where it is difficult to square his business interests with his moral conscience.

1. Find these expressions in the text and translate them into Russian. Be ready to give explanations:

to bend principles, bribery is on the increase, to break into a market to stand by one’s principles, to operate a 'slush fund', to pay smb with padded commissions, to make payments to numbered bank accounts in Switzerland, to be in a wheeling-dealing business, to grease the palms of the buyers, to make questionable payments, to make dubious payments: bribes, facilitating payments, extra discounts, to make substantial payments for political purposes or to secure major contracts, violations of the anti-trust law, a go-between, to clinch a deal, to put pressure on companies, to speed up the wheels of bureaucracy, to hit upon the answer, to facilitate the passage of a business deal, to ensure a tender is put on a selective contract list, to soften up a government official, to clear cargoes, no money changed hands, to outlaw bribery, to ban the giving and seeking of bribes, to administer the code, to enforce the code, to have legal teeth, to be caught in a web of bribery, to be on the take, to square business interests with moral conscience.

SWISS BANKING SECRECY

Since the early 1930s, Swiss banks had prided themselves on their system of banking secrecy and numbered accounts. Over the years, they had successfully withstood every challenge to this system by their own government who, in turn, had been frequently urged by foreign governments to reveal information about the financial affairs of certain account holders. The result of this policy of secrecy was that a kind of mystique had grown up around Swiss banking. There was a widely-held belief that Switzerland was irresistible to wealthy foreigners, mainly because of its numbered accounts and bankers' reluctance to ask awkward questions of depositors. Contributing to the mystique was the view, carefully propagated by the banks themselves, that if this secrecy was ever given up, foreigners would fall over themselves in the rush to withdraw money, and the Swiss banking system would virtually collapse overnight.

To many, therefore, it came like a bolt out of the blue, when the Swiss banks announced they had signed a pact with the Swiss National Bank (the Central Bank). The aim of this agreement was to prevent the improper use of the country's bank secrecy laws, and its effect was to curb severely the system of secrecy. A headline in a British newspaper at that time aptly summed up the general view: Numbered accounts' days are numbered.

The new code which the banks had agreed to observe made the opening of numbered accounts subject to much closer scrutiny than before. The banks would be required, if necessary, to identify the origin of foreign funds going into numbered and other accounts. The idea was to stop such accounts being used for dubious purposes. Also, the banks agreed not to facilitate in any way capital transfers from countries which had introduced laws to restrict the transfer of capital abroad. Finally, they agreed not knowingly to accept funds resulting from tax evasion or from crime.

The pact represented essentially a tightening up of banking rules. Although the banks agreed to end relations with clients whose identities were unclear or who were performing improper acts, they were still not obliged to inform on a client to anyone, including the Swiss government. To some extent, therefore, the principle of secrecy had been maintained.

What eventually persuaded the banks to allow restrictions to be placed on their cherished system of secrecy and numbered accounts? To answer this question, we will take a historical perspective and look back at events leading up to this significant change in banking policy.

The solid foundation of the system was provided by the Swiss bank secrecy law of 1934. This made it a penal offence to provide information about a bank's clients without their explicit authorisation, unless a court ordered otherwise.

At that time, the law was designed to protect Jewish and other account holders in Germany against informers. The Nazi authorities had imposed stiff penalties, including capital punishment, for anyone transferring money abroad, and they were in the habit of sending agents into Switzerland to track down the assets of German Jews and others intending to flee the Nazi regime. The Swiss Parliament placed banking secrecy under the protection of the law after a Gestapo agent seduced a young woman employee and obtained the identities of some depositors.

Unfortunately, some banks began to abuse the protection afforded by this law. Critics both inside and outside the country, frequently accused them of irregular practices. Some said the banks were havens for smuggled currency and provided a shield for tax evasion. Hence, banking secrecy had helped Switzerland to become a nation of receivers of stolen goods. It was also believed that ransom mоnеу from a number of kidnappings in Italy was paid into Swiss banks in the southern Swiss canton of Ticino, located near the Swiss/Italian border.

Several years ago the National Bank started talks with the Swiss Bankers' Association (85% of the commercial banks belong to this) to persuade the banks to be less tight-lipped about their operations and more forthcoming with information. It had to give up the attempt because the Association carried out a vigorous publicity campaign, complaining that the mere rumour of less secrecy had already caused foreigners to withdraw funds.

What unquestionably pushed – some say stampeded – the Swiss banks into limiting secrecy was the huge financial scandal involving the Crédit Suisse: one of Switzerland's 'big three' banks. The notoriety of the affair badly tarnished the Swiss banks' image of stability and honesty.

The scandal came to light when the Credit Suisse bank revealed that the manager of one of its major branches, near the Italian border, had been involved in secret, unauthorized deals. These had resulted in gigantic losses to the bank. Some estimated the eventual figure might reach £300 million or more.

The manager of the bank and an assistant were said to have channelled about two billion dollars (£500 million) illegally into a Liechtenstein company, Texon. The manager had a stake in this company. The money used had come into the bank, over a fifteen-year period, from Italians who had hoarded lire, then wanted to convert their currency into stronger Swiss francs.

The manager had apparently offered these depositors Swiss credit guarantees for their investments without telling Head Office, and then he had got Texon to reinvest the money in Italian companies dealing in plastics, wine and other such products. Most of these enterprises had folded up.

When it became known in banking circles that Texon's investments were disastrous, the Swiss banking community put pressure on Crédit Suisse to make a clean breast of everything. Bankers feared that confidence in the entire banking system would be undermined. When the scandal was disclosed, it made headlines internationally.

An important result of the Crédit Suisse fiasco was that the Swiss banks were forced to tighten their rules and formalize their behaviour regarding banking secrecy. As we have already mentioned, pressure to reform the system had been building up for years. It needed this debacle to tip the banks towards reform. The Swiss Director General of the National Bank was undoubtedly right when he stated publicly that Switzerland's status as a banking centre was based not on numbered accounts, but on the social and economic stability of the country.